Don Pacifico infinite funds is obviously bullshit, we still need to abide by FFP rules.

Good thing we didn't sell Partey to not lose 20m on him next season if this is what we're spending our money on.

If there's one position in the team where it's much better to spend 70m on one player and 10m on the other than 40m on each, it's the GK position imo.

We'll have paid a lot for two decent keepers instead of a world class one and a backup who won't embarrass himself.

Increased cost doesn't necessarily automatically translate to significantly better or world class. You identify the attributes you need or want and go for a player based on their availability (if you can afford it). It has been our M.O. all summer. Why should this be any different?

I have a gut feeling Raya will be our CL and other Cups keeper and we will have a Bravo/Ter Stegen setup.

Don Pacifico my understanding (happy to be proven wrong by someone better informed) is that our transfer spending (particularly during the Europa years, post-COVID etc.) has been significantly funded by the Kroenkes, who charge interest on their loans.

The Covid loan was effectively a restructuring of debt that Arsenal already owed. Arsenal took most of those loans out pre-2008 and they had an abnormally high interest (perhaps not so abnormal in 2023) and fairly restrictive covenants including keeping aside a set cash balance that could not be used for transfers or business operations.

During Covid, Arsenal were likely to breach most of the loan covenants because the world came to a standstill and at which point Kroenke stepped in and paid off the loan to external parties parties and replaced it with the loan to KSE. Overall it was a net benefit because we refinanced at a much lower rate of interest and we do no longer have any restrictive loan covenants which had a knock on effect of freeing up cash for more operations.

Subsequent to that, we've also trimmed down our wage bill significantly (https://dailycannon.com/2023/03/arsenal-wage-bill/) and we've also performed ahead of expectations by finishing second and getting back into the CL which also provided a nice boost. The only downside is that we haven't sold particularly well but every other aspect has been pretty well managed.

All that to say is that we aren't financing player transfers through additional debt. Kroenke did restructure our finances at a critical time which naturally makes us a more healthy business but that's about it.

£100 mill on Raya and Havertz seems like a bad use of money. I would think that could have been spent a lot more effective.

Pepe LeFrits or what flobs said.

Mirth that all makes sense.

However, given the 'overspend' during the Europa years and the continued significant investment in players (see £105m against Rice), is there not going to be a time where because of FFP, we have to rein in our spending? Commercially (as I understand it) we've lost a lot of ground over the last ten years so our current spending pattern feels to me (a) unsustainable and (b) a strategy of over invest now (in young players) so that you don't have to invest us much in the future. Either way, we will need to reduce our annual transfer expenditure at some point unless there is a significant step-change in our commercial performance and our trophy-winning (don't think qualifying for the CL will cover it).

Again, happy to be proven wrong but I'm struggling to see how our expenditure now won't impact our spending further down the line.

The crux of financial fair play is a break-even requirement from our operational activity alone over a 3 year period. It's actually quite hard to breach that unless you're willfully irresponsible.

Ultimately no one outside the club can say that this summer's transfer moves are definitively not risking our FFP position because the impact of the Rice, Havertz plus the incoming CL revenue won't be publicly visible for another year. So you could be right.

However, there's a pretty good track record of Arsenal showing good financial governance. Moreover, the impact of player transfers is offset by the lower interest payments, lower wage bills and recent CL qualification as the player transfer fees are spread over the life of their contracts while the other 3 are manifested immediately.

As ever It comes down to whether we spend money to buy good players - £65m for Havertz will be a bargain if he delivers but if we signed someone for £30m and he flops it's far more costly in the long run.

I think Clrnc's broader point is still valid. Sanchez has the same amount of Spain caps, more PL appearances and is younger than Raya.

There shouldn't be as significant a variance in price between the two.

@Don Pacifico Picking what gives you more value between 25m and your first choice GK vs 25m and your backup choice who you benched because he doesn't fit your play style are two very different choices, regardless of whether the quality is similar.

In Brighton's case, the 25m can improve the team more other places than on their GK bench. In Brentford's, it might not improve them to make that choice.

QuincyAbeyie Brentford already bought a new first choice keeper. Same for Brighton too tbh. Situation is not that different.

Not to mention Raya will leave on a free after this window

QuincyAbeyie yeah sure, but it also suggests that the price shouldn't be so wildly different.

Sanchez was dropped because De Zerbi prefers Steele, Raya was replaced because he wouldn't sign a new deal.